Big G little g RSVP
Roselynn White
Man created God from belief. God then created everything. God
created the future, in which all man realized that God did indeed exist,
and man did not, therefore, need to believe, because they had fact. God
instantly vanished, having no one to believe in him any more. Therefore
God was created and ceased to exist in the same instant.
The Ever More Insane for Posting This, the Left Rev Rex stain099
zog...@home.com
>
> Big G and little g Ggods aside, here's a strange paper i stole and wrote
>
> Man created God from belief. God then created everything. God
> created the future, in which all man realized that God did indeed exist,
> and man did not, therefore, need to believe, because they had fact. God
> instantly vanished, having no one to believe in him any more. Therefore
> God was created and ceased to exist in the same instant.
>
Zog the etc...
Timothy Sutter
if I was Man, i'da never created God.
and most agree that babies are not
born with some knowledge of God.
so, I can only conclude that God created Man's belief.
--
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
Some people beieve they will win the lottery. Maybe they will. But
they probably won't. Did God create that too? I think Man created
Man's belief.
-><-
Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp
Lord of Petty Annoyances
Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal
http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC
-><-
"I am the way, prepare for salvation"
-Fear Factory, "Smasher/Devourer"
-><-
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter:
> >Roselynn White wrote:
> >> Big G and little g Ggods aside, here's a strange paper i stole and wrote
> >> Man created God from belief. God then created everything. God
> >> created the future, in which all man realized that God did indeed exist,
> >> and man did not, therefore, need to believe, because they had fact. God
> >> instantly vanished, having no one to believe in him any more. Therefore
> >> God was created and ceased to exist in the same instant.
> >if I was Man, i'da never created God.
> >and most agree that babies are not
> >born with some knowledge of God.
> >so, I can only conclude that God created Man's belief.
> Some people beieve they will win the lottery. Maybe they will. But
> they probably won't. Did God create that too? I think Man created
> Man's belief.
you can't show me how or why man
would create man's belief in God.
the comparison to lotteries falls short.
man created lotteries. gambling on probabilities.
probabilities are things you see every day.
and children are born with the ability
to grasp and understand probabilities.
if man is not born with a belief in God,
where did it come from originally?
this has nothing to do with my feelings or what I "think."
ask yourself "*why* do I believe man created man's belief in God?"
who placed that idea in your head?
who placed the idea in you that there was a God,
that didn't exist, in the first place?
cretainly not YOU.
you ain't a good enough liar
to tell me that YOU came up with the idea
of a God that didn't exist, all on your own.
...
--
Jaden
wrote:
> you can't show me how or why man
> would create man's belief in God.
It's not the sort of thing that's provable, but I think that people - especially
ancient people who didn't have cars and microwaves - feel helpless in the face
of nature and circumstance, so it's reassuring to think that there is something
bigger than nature that has a soft spot for humans.
That's the 50-word manifesto version of the cultural anthropology approach to
God.
---------------------------------------
Jaden ~ ja...@ufl.edu
*Suspicion Breeds Confidence*
www.eriswerks.org
There is no enemy
anywhere
Madog Velkor
>Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter:
>
>> >Roselynn White wrote:
>
>> >> Big G and little g Ggods aside, here's a strange paper i stole and wrote
>
>> >> Man created God from belief. God then created everything. God
>> >> created the future, in which all man realized that God did indeed exist,
>> >> and man did not, therefore, need to believe, because they had fact. God
>> >> instantly vanished, having no one to believe in him any more. Therefore
>> >> God was created and ceased to exist in the same instant.
>
>> >if I was Man, i'da never created God.
>
>> >and most agree that babies are not
>> >born with some knowledge of God.
>
>> >so, I can only conclude that God created Man's belief.
>
>> Some people beieve they will win the lottery. Maybe they will. But
>> they probably won't. Did God create that too? I think Man created
>> Man's belief.
>
>you can't show me how or why man
>would create man's belief in God.
Why not? Man's created a lot of beliefs. Beliefs in spirits, good,
evil, magic, science, and een God. 4000 years ago there was nothing
special about God, he was just one of many in the Semetic pantheon.
>the comparison to lotteries falls short.
>man created lotteries. gambling on probabilities.
>probabilities are things you see every day.
>and children are born with the ability
>to grasp and understand probabilities.
Man created God on the probability that He might exist and if he did
he's give big rewards to his worshipers, and punish those who didn't
beleive in him.
>if man is not born with a belief in God,
>where did it come from originally?
Cavemen who ate spoiled meat.
>this has nothing to do with my feelings or what I "think."
>ask yourself "*why* do I believe man created man's belief in God?"
>who placed that idea in your head?
>who placed the idea in you that there was a God,
>that didn't exist, in the first place?
>cretainly not YOU.
Me, God, what's the difference? We're all part of the same whole.
Maybe it was Bobo.
>
>you ain't a good enough liar
>to tell me that YOU came up with the idea
>of a God that didn't exist, all on your own.
Well of course, not. I got the idea from others, just like you got the
idea that he did exist from others. THe cycle's been going on for
longer than H.sapiens has existed.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you can't show me how or why man
> > would create man's belief in God.
> It's not the sort of thing that's provable, but I think that people - especially
> ancient people who didn't have cars and microwaves - feel helpless in the face
> of nature and circumstance, so it's reassuring to think that there is something
> bigger than nature that has a soft spot for humans.
I don't buy the "primitive man" bit.
and, yes, you are working backwords from a,
there already is a God, plane.
if a human being will not invent God without the help
of someone to teach it about God, then why should anyone
create a God form to explain anything?
all of that primitive man story is meaningless, if
people are not born with a tendency to believe in God.
and it's generally accepted that
people are born not believing in God.
--
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter:
> >Madog Velkor wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter:
> >> Some people beieve they will win the lottery. Maybe they will. But
> >> they probably won't. Did God create that too? I think Man created
> >> Man's belief.
> >you can't show me how or why man
> >would create man's belief in God.
> Why not? Man's created a lot of beliefs. Beliefs in spirits, good,
> evil, magic, science, and een God. 4000 years ago there was nothing
> special about God, he was just one of many in the Semetic pantheon.
"after the fact" arguments.
why would a human being invent any
sort of god to explain anything?
would you invent a god to explain where you came from?
well, believe it or not *you* ain't any
more advanced than so-called "primitive man."
having electric appliances does not make you
any more advanced than people were 3000 years ago.
would you have invented a god for any reason.
you'll never know. but generally
people believe that children are not born believing in gods.
> Well of course, not. I got the idea from others, just like you got the
> idea that he did exist from others. THe cycle's been going on for
> longer than H.sapiens has existed.
human beings are NOT born believing in God.
there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
--
Jaden
wrote:
> if a human being will not invent God without the help
> of someone to teach it about God, then why should anyone
> create a God form to explain anything?
>
> all of that primitive man story is meaningless, if
> people are not born with a tendency to believe in God.
People are born with a tendency to "find" patterns where there are none, and
also with imaginations... It seems reasonable to me that people could have come
up with gods to explain the forces of nature. It's not a coincidence that most
religions have very human-like gods. People like to think that Someone is in
charge. Monotheism would be a refined version of the same myth.
> and it's generally accepted that
> people are born not believing in God.
They're born with the mental faculties to invent such a concept, though.
Jaden
wrote:
> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
ginohn
> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
and there's no reason to invent Santa,
yet someone did. Does Santa exist?
And no, I'm not an athesist, but I play
one on TV. I'm just providing an example
of a created belief. It doesn't seem too
difficult to create beliefs in gods out
of campfire stories and bad meat.
ginohn
An assistant trepaner?
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > Madog Velkor wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter:
> > > >Madog Velkor wrote:
> > > >> Timothy Sutter:
> > "after the fact" arguments.
after the fact.
there was a St. Nicholas.
and there was already "god"
before someone "invented" santa claus.
this is called a "derivative" belief.
not a new invention.
--
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > if a human being will not invent God without the help
> > of someone to teach it about God, then why should anyone
> > create a God form to explain anything?
> > all of that primitive man story is meaningless, if
> > people are not born with a tendency to believe in God.
> People are born with a tendency to "find" patterns where there are none, and
> also with imaginations... It seems reasonable to me that people could have come
> up with gods to explain the forces of nature. It's not a coincidence that most
> religions have very human-like gods. People like to think that Someone is in
> charge. Monotheism would be a refined version of the same myth.
how is it reasonable to invent a being that controls weather?
man cannot control the weather.
why invest a being with powers that you don't possess?
there's nothing "human-like" about controlling the weather.
> > and it's generally accepted that
> > people are born not believing in God.
> They're born with the mental faculties to invent such a concept, though.
prove it.
I put it to you that should you ever
isolate a group of people from birth
and let them go their merry way,
that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
I guess no one will ever do this experiment,
partly because it's not in anyone's interest to do so.
you have to introduce the concept of god
to people before you can introduce the reasons
why no such being can exist.
*this* my aquaintance, *IS* THE CLASSIC STRAWMAN.
yes, I said strawman, and I know that neither of us like that so much.
but this is where it works.
you invent the concept of a god that you already
have the ability to destroy and then you say that
*all* god forms are equally "refutable."
and then it's too late.
*that* meme is all invasive. and pervasive.
but this is after the fact.
this "strawman" god still does not explain where and how
the "original" concept of god arose.
and this "strawman" god is not an original invention.
and *you* are already tainted in *your* ability
to show otherwise.
because *you* have been exposed to the "strawman" meme.
oh yes you have.
--
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> > there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
> Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
yes, there is nothing in nature which resembles god.
there is no empirical evidence for god.
....plain and simple....
man is in nature.
man should be able to understand the concepts
of power and control from among himself.
man doesn't need to invent a god to explain power and control.
when a wild animal devours a man,
he doesn't invent a god
or call the wild animal, god.
he doesn't even imbue the animal with human traits.
and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
inventing abstract concepts
stems from leisure activity.
you may consider that "primitive man"
never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
huh?
--
ginohn
> > > there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
> > and there's no reason to invent Santa,
> > yet someone did. Does Santa exist?
> > And no, I'm not an athesist, but I play
> > one on TV. I'm just providing an example
> > of a created belief. It doesn't seem too
> > difficult to create beliefs in gods out
> > of campfire stories and bad meat.
>
> after the fact.
>
> there was a St. Nicholas.
>
> and there was already "god"
> before someone "invented" santa claus.
>
> this is called a "derivative" belief.
>
> not a new invention.
Your logic is beyond me.
You win. God is Santa Claus.
ginohn
>
> I put it to you that should you ever
> isolate a group of people from birth
> and let them go their merry way,
>
They won't invent a "car" either,
but generations later, one of them
might invent a "wheel", and so on.
The meme of "god" may have evolved
from other memes. It had thousands
of generations to work through.
ginohn
>
> and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
>
> inventing abstract concepts
> stems from leisure activity.
>
> you may consider that "primitive man"
> never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
>
> huh?
Some anthropologists have stated that the
!Kung Bushmen work approximately 3 hours a day.
They appear to have more leisure time than us.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
they don't get the idea of god from nature.
--
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > huh?
I'm not interested in your welfare mother.
so, these bushmen are "primitive" unevolved humans?
it's so nice to know that.
let's drop you in the bush and see
just how evolved *you* are.
--
ginohn
>
> ginohn wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
Timothy Sutter
> > ginohn wrote:
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
a car is not a large step from a chariot.
combustion is derived from nature.
steam engines are derived from nature.
electric motors are derived from nature.
put all these together and you get a car.
"god" is not derived from nature.
--
ginohn
>
> ginohn wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
were stupid, or unevolved. Quite the contrary,
their minds were probably as sharp as ours.
Their technology, however, was about the level
of the !Kung. At least, this is what many
anthropologist have stated. Thank you.
Accessibly Vague
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> ginohn wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
> > > ginohn wrote:
>
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
Yeah and you can't build a god because then it would be a car and there
are too many cars anyway.
~Slag~
ginohn
a god is not a large step from a ghost.
swamp gas is derived from nature.
steam vents are derived from nature.
electric storms are derived from nature.
put all these together and you get a god.
ginohn
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 21:57:47 -0800, Timothy Sutter
> <tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>
> >
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> > I put it to you that should you ever
> >> > isolate a group of people from birth
> >> > and let them go their merry way,
> >> > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
> >
> >> They won't invent a "car" either,
> >> but generations later, one of them
> >> might invent a "wheel", and so on.
> >> The meme of "god" may have evolved
> >> from other memes. It had thousands
> >> of generations to work through.
> >
> >well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
> >
> >they don't get the idea of god from nature.
>
> God took the place of parents in the mind of an adult. They couldn't
> rely on thier paretns anymore because they were adults too, so they
> created a more powerful parent. But Freud was a nutcase.
>
Which doesn't invalidate his argument,
but it seems a difficult one to prove,
nonetheless. He did lotsa coke, too...
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > yes, there is nothing in nature which resembles god.
> > there is no empirical evidence for god.
> > ....plain and simple....
> I still think man resembles (classical ideas of) god.
this is called anthropomorphism.
this is giving human qualities and attributes to nature.
or anything else, for that matter.
anthropomorphism humanizes nature,
it doesn't deify nature.
in essence, they are deifying man.
which is not really deification at all.
it's saying "man is the measure of all things."
no real "deity" at all.
> Humans are dramatically
> smarter than other animals. We can comprehend abstract concepts like this, we
> can control fire, we can plant crops and harvest them and figure out that
> leaving one out of three fields fallow each season replenishes the soil.
> It's not so big a step to imagine a being which is to humans as
> humans are to other animals. It's simple extrapolation,
> exactly the sort of thing humans are good at.
no, this really isn't such a far step.
but this sort of being need not be deity and
human beings have historically
placed themselves at the top of the heap.
i mean, fine you seem bent on something like the greek gods.
well, zeus was personalized "sovereignty."
hermes was a personalized "road marker."
athena, personalized "wisdom."
you are gunna end up agreeing with me if you use the greeks.
their "gods" are more, idealized human virtues.
you are looking back on them thru the filter
of 20th century debates about God.
the greeks did abstract the best of what they
saw as Human and elevated that to a level of praise.
and, of course, humanized natural forces.
this is not Deity.
> > man is in nature.
> > man should be able to understand the concepts
> > of power and control from among himself.
> > man doesn't need to invent a god to explain power and control.
> But maybe he needs a god to explain the things he doesn't understand and control
> himself.
if your parents told you you couldn't
have a Power Ranger, would you call them God?
or if your parents fed you dinner every night
and you had no idea where the food came from
would you call them God?
no, you wouldn't.
when the gubment levies a tax, do you call them God?
no, you don't.
> > when a wild animal devours a man,
> > he doesn't invent a god
> > or call the wild animal, god.
> > he doesn't even imbue the animal with human traits.
> Well, some cultures do... Like African hunters who thank the animals they
> kill...
have you ever been there?
seriously, have you ever heard
one of these guys thank an animal?
and anyway, I thank the gas pump when i get gas.
this is sort of not germaine. it's Tito.
> > and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
> > inventing abstract concepts
> > stems from leisure activity.
> > you may consider that "primitive man"
> > never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
> > huh?
> I'll bet they had lots of time to think while they were out hunting and
> gathering. They did those cave paintings, too.
well, *you* don't really know whether some
lizard did those cave paintings or not.
--
Timothy Sutter
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> > ginohn wrote:
> >
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> > > > ginohn wrote:
> >
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I put it to you that should you ever
> > > > > > isolate a group of people from birth
> > > > > > and let them go their merry way,
> > > > > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
> >
> > > > > They won't invent a "car" either,
> > > > > but generations later, one of them
> > > > > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
> > > > > The meme of "god" may have evolved
> > > > > from other memes. It had thousands
> > > > > of generations to work through.
> >
> > > > well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
> >
> > > > they don't get the idea of god from nature.
> >
> >
> > > Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
> >
> > a car is not a large step from a chariot.
> >
> > combustion is derived from nature.
> > steam engines are derived from nature.
> > electric motors are derived from nature.
> > put all these together and you get a car.
> > "god" is not derived from nature.
> a god is not a large step from a ghost.
> swamp gas is derived from nature.
> steam vents are derived from nature.
> electric storms are derived from nature.
> put all these together and you get a god.
if *that* is what you call a god,
then I don't blame you for not believing in god.
but then you'd be simply not believing
in a thing that wasn't God anyway.
and your moving from particular to general back to particular
would be rattled with holes anywho.
"my simplistic idea of god does not exist, therefore
no God exists therefore your God does not exist."
illogical illogical illogical, error error error...
--
ginohn
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:11:05 -0500, ginohn <ma...@wunderland.com>
> jibbered semi-coherently:
>
> >Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>
> >> ginohn wrote:
> >>
> >> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>
> >> > > I put it to you that should you ever
> >> > > isolate a group of people from birth
> >> > > and let them go their merry way,
> >> > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
> >>
> >> > They won't invent a "car" either,
> >> > but generations later, one of them
> >> > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
> >> > The meme of "god" may have evolved
> >> > from other memes. It had thousands
> >> > of generations to work through.
> >>
> >> well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
> >>
> >> they don't get the idea of god from nature.
> >>
> >But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
> >
> >Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
>
> pull things. they hooked some things up to an animal and it was
> pulled. This lead to chariots, which lead to wagons, which lead to
> coaches, which lead to trains, which lead to cars.
>
Well, what I meant was that they don't get the idea of a car
*directly* from nature (at least the nature that Tim was talking
about). Just like the idea of a god might not come *directly*
from nature (although it's a much simpler idea than a car,
otherwise we'd have cars before gods), rather it would evolve
from other concepts and observations, and in the gods' special
case, hallucinations from bad meat and multiple orgasms.
There is naturally, so to speak, a chain from every meme
to something in nature. I am getting sleepy.
J. Calvin Smith
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:37:06 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
>> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
>Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
Just like there's no innate reason why man shouldn't drive an
automobile or make a substantial monetary income, just because they
didn't pop out of the womb with a driver's license or a
screw-your-neighbor work ethic.
J. Calvin "Bimp" Smith ___ Hello. I'm Bimp.
bi...@mindspring.com /O_O\ I am not a troublemaker. Sorry.
\_=_/ In fact, Mom says trouble is
| | bored with me. (Sigh.)
I'll say more later.
p u t a b i m p o n t h e b o t t o m o f i t
-- tks cjd
Jaden
wrote:
> how is it reasonable to invent a being that controls weather?
> man cannot control the weather.
> why invest a being with powers that you don't possess?
> there's nothing "human-like" about controlling the weather.
Well not exactly, but it carries over. Humans do control -some- things, like
fire and cable television. For someone with very little background information
on the way things work, things like lightning and the precise movement of stars
and planets could well seem too complex to have occurred natually.
We're animals, ourselves, and we can control certain things (issues of free will
notwithstanding). And looking around, we see that there are a lot of other kinds
of animals, too... wolves, bears, fish, etc. And each one seems to have its own
little niche, to be master of its own sphere (even without any understanding of
scientific ecology, this makes sense... this is the sort of thing African
villagers would readily accept). When we look around, we see life everywhere,
and each thing master of its own small portion of the world... So how is it not
at least possible for people to assume that some being must be master of
lighting and wind?
> > They're born with the mental faculties to invent such a concept, though.
>
> prove it.
I like the Santa Claus thing that someone came up with earlier today. I think
the analogy holds...
> I put it to you that should you ever
> isolate a group of people from birth
> and let them go their merry way,
> that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>
> I guess no one will ever do this experiment,
> partly because it's not in anyone's interest to do so.
>
> you have to introduce the concept of god
> to people before you can introduce the reasons
> why no such being can exist.
Why? I don't see any more hard evidence on your side of this than on mine...
> *this* my aquaintance, *IS* THE CLASSIC STRAWMAN.
Maybe we should crosspost the rest of this to some atheist newsgroups.
> yes, I said strawman, and I know that neither of us like that so much.
>
> but this is where it works.
>
> you invent the concept of a god that you already
> have the ability to destroy and then you say that
> *all* god forms are equally "refutable."
>
> and then it's too late.
>
> *that* meme is all invasive. and pervasive.
>
> but this is after the fact.
It's a tempting thing... it's easy to come up with a hypothetical explanation
for something like this, refute it in the same breath, and call the whole thing
BS.
> this "strawman" god still does not explain where and how
> the "original" concept of god arose.
>
> and this "strawman" god is not an original invention.
>
> and *you* are already tainted in *your* ability
> to show otherwise.
>
> because *you* have been exposed to the "strawman" meme.
But, this only means that my armchair-anthropology theory on this -might- be
wrong. It's not damning evidence all by itself.
> oh yes you have.
Everyone has....
Jaden
wrote:
> yes, there is nothing in nature which resembles god.
>
> there is no empirical evidence for god.
>
> ....plain and simple....
I still think man resembles (classical ideas of) god. Humans are dramatically
smarter than other animals. We can comprehend abstract concepts like this, we
can control fire, we can plant crops and harvest them and figure out that
leaving one out of three fields fallow each season replenishes the soil. It's
not so big a step to imagine a being which is to humans as humans are to other
animals. It's simple extrapolation, exactly the sort of thing humans are good
at.
> man is in nature.
>
> man should be able to understand the concepts
> of power and control from among himself.
>
> man doesn't need to invent a god to explain power and control.
But maybe he needs a god to explain the things he doesn't understand and control
himself.
> when a wild animal devours a man,
> he doesn't invent a god
> or call the wild animal, god.
>
> he doesn't even imbue the animal with human traits.
Well, some cultures do... Like African hunters who thank the animals they
kill...
> and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
>
> inventing abstract concepts
> stems from leisure activity.
>
> you may consider that "primitive man"
> never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
>
> huh?
I'll bet they had lots of time to think while they were out hunting and
gathering. They did those cave paintings, too.
---------------------------------------
Jaden
wrote:
> and there was already "god"
> before someone "invented" santa claus.
>
> this is called a "derivative" belief.
>
> not a new invention.
If god's control over nature is an extrapolation of man's lesser control over
nature, then the concept of god would be derivative also.
Jaden
> Yeah and you can't build a god because then it would be a car and there
> are too many cars anyway.
Packard came out with its "God" model in the early 50's, but even that couldn't
keep the company from going under.
Jaden
wrote:
> a car is not a large step from a chariot.
>
> combustion is derived from nature.
>
> steam engines are derived from nature.
>
> electric motors are derived from nature.
>
> put all these together and you get a car.
>
>
> "god" is not derived from nature.
How about singularities?
Marc Lachance
Ja...@nospam.ufl.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 13:31:40 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> > you can't show me how or why man
> > would create man's belief in God.
>
> ancient people who didn't have cars and microwaves-feel helpless in the face
> of nature and circumstance, so it's reassuring to think that there is something
> bigger than nature that has a soft spot for humans.
>
> That's the 50-word manifesto version of the cultural anthropology approach to
> God.
Personification. People like to think somebody's behind the scenes. We're all
looking for the Man Behind the Curtain. Frank Baum knew this. Piaget knew
this. Lichtenberg, too.
/\ Marc Lachance -><-
/<>\ (K) 3165 or thereabouts. Possibly.
/____\ Don't forget to [FNORD] the [FNORD]!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>ginohn wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > I put it to you that should you ever
>> > isolate a group of people from birth
>> > and let them go their merry way,
>> > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>
>> They won't invent a "car" either,
>> but generations later, one of them
>> might invent a "wheel", and so on.
>> The meme of "god" may have evolved
>> from other memes. It had thousands
>> of generations to work through.
>
>well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
>
>they don't get the idea of god from nature.
Sure they can. Freud had an intresting theory about that. Said that
God took the place of parents in the mind of an adult. They couldn't
rely on thier paretns anymore because they were adults too, so they
created a more powerful parent. But Freud was a nutcase.
-><-
Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp
Lord of Petty Annoyances
Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal
http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC
-><-
"I am the way, prepare for salvation"
-Fear Factory, "Smasher/Devourer"
-><-
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> ginohn wrote:
>>
>> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> > > I put it to you that should you ever
>> > > isolate a group of people from birth
>> > > and let them go their merry way,
>> > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>>
>> > They won't invent a "car" either,
>> > but generations later, one of them
>> > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
>> > The meme of "god" may have evolved
>> > from other memes. It had thousands
>> > of generations to work through.
>>
>> well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
>>
>> they don't get the idea of god from nature.
>>
>But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
>
>Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
Sure they do. See, they could pull things. They saw that animals could
pull things. they hooked some things up to an animal and it was
pulled. This lead to chariots, which lead to wagons, which lead to
coaches, which lead to trains, which lead to cars.
-><-
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>ginohn wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > ginohn wrote:
>
>> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > > > I put it to you that should you ever
>> > > > isolate a group of people from birth
>> > > > and let them go their merry way,
>> > > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>
>> > > They won't invent a "car" either,
>> > > but generations later, one of them
>> > > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
>> > > The meme of "god" may have evolved
>> > > from other memes. It had thousands
>> > > of generations to work through.
>
>> > well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
>
>> > they don't get the idea of god from nature.
>
>> But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
>
>> Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
>
>a car is not a large step from a chariot.
>
>combustion is derived from nature.
>
>steam engines are derived from nature.
>
>electric motors are derived from nature.
>
>put all these together and you get a car.
Oh, well I gues my last post was redundent then.
>
>"god" is not derived from nature.
Sure, some people are more powerful than others. Nature is more
powerful than primative Man. Man wants protection from nature, but no
one is strong enough. So they just imagine a realy strong man that is
stronger than nature.
>
>
>--
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:13:29 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> a car is not a large step from a chariot.
>>
>> combustion is derived from nature.
>>
>> steam engines are derived from nature.
>>
>> electric motors are derived from nature.
>>
>> put all these together and you get a car.
>>
>>
>> "god" is not derived from nature.
>
>How about singularities?
>
Only if they have thier clothes on.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> ginohn wrote:
>>
>> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> > > ginohn wrote:
>>
>> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> > > > > I put it to you that should you ever
>> > > > > isolate a group of people from birth
>> > > > > and let them go their merry way,
>> > > > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>>
>> > > > They won't invent a "car" either,
>> > > > but generations later, one of them
>> > > > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
>> > > > The meme of "god" may have evolved
>> > > > from other memes. It had thousands
>> > > > of generations to work through.
>>
>> > > well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
>>
>> > > they don't get the idea of god from nature.
>>
>> > But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
>>
>> > Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
>>
>> a car is not a large step from a chariot.
>>
>> combustion is derived from nature.
>>
>> steam engines are derived from nature.
>>
>> electric motors are derived from nature.
>>
>> put all these together and you get a car.
>>
>> "god" is not derived from nature.
>
> a god is not a large step from a ghost.
>
> swamp gas is derived from nature.
>
> steam vents are derived from nature.
>
> electric storms are derived from nature.
>
> put all these together and you get a god.
No, you get a really big, spooky explosion if that lighting hits that
swampgas.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:41:30 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> how is it reasonable to invent a being that controls weather?
>> man cannot control the weather.
>> why invest a being with powers that you don't possess?
>> there's nothing "human-like" about controlling the weather.
>
>Well not exactly, but it carries over. Humans do control -some- things, like
>fire and cable television. For someone with very little background information
>on the way things work, things like lightning and the precise movement of stars
>and planets could well seem too complex to have occurred natually.
If it's complex enough, then the system itsself could be god. Chaos is
Order with the gloves off.
>We're animals, ourselves, and we can control certain things (issues of free will
>notwithstanding). And looking around, we see that there are a lot of other kinds
>of animals, too... wolves, bears, fish, etc. And each one seems to have its own
>little niche, to be master of its own sphere (even without any understanding of
>scientific ecology, this makes sense... this is the sort of thing African
>villagers would readily accept). When we look around, we see life everywhere,
>and each thing master of its own small portion of the world... So how is it not
>at least possible for people to assume that some being must be master of
>lighting and wind?
Not to mention that they were origionally thought to be beings in and
of themselves.
>> > They're born with the mental faculties to invent such a concept, though.
>>
>> prove it.
>
>I like the Santa Claus thing that someone came up with earlier today. I think
>the analogy holds...
>
>> I put it to you that should you ever
>> isolate a group of people from birth
>> and let them go their merry way,
>> that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>>
>> I guess no one will ever do this experiment,
>> partly because it's not in anyone's interest to do so.
>>
>> you have to introduce the concept of god
>> to people before you can introduce the reasons
>> why no such being can exist.
>
>Why? I don't see any more hard evidence on your side of this than on mine...
Check his pants.
>> *this* my aquaintance, *IS* THE CLASSIC STRAWMAN.
>
>Maybe we should crosspost the rest of this to some atheist newsgroups.
Done, and done.
>> yes, I said strawman, and I know that neither of us like that so much.
>>
>> but this is where it works.
>>
>> you invent the concept of a god that you already
>> have the ability to destroy and then you say that
>> *all* god forms are equally "refutable."
>>
>> and then it's too late.
>>
>> *that* meme is all invasive. and pervasive.
>>
>> but this is after the fact.
>
>It's a tempting thing... it's easy to come up with a hypothetical explanation
>for something like this, refute it in the same breath, and call the whole thing
>BS.
Well, then do the oposite. Come up with a refutation and explain it
hypothetically.
>> this "strawman" god still does not explain where and how
>> the "original" concept of god arose.
>>
>> and this "strawman" god is not an original invention.
>>
>> and *you* are already tainted in *your* ability
>> to show otherwise.
>>
>> because *you* have been exposed to the "strawman" meme.
>
>But, this only means that my armchair-anthropology theory on this -might- be
>wrong. It's not damning evidence all by itself.
>
>> oh yes you have.
>
>Everyone has....
I've proved every explaination for and against god wrong. So where
does that leave me?
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter:
>
>> >Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> >> Timothy Sutter:
>
>
>> >> Some people beieve they will win the lottery. Maybe they will. But
>> >> they probably won't. Did God create that too? I think Man created
>> >> Man's belief.
>
>> >you can't show me how or why man
>> >would create man's belief in God.
>
>> Why not? Man's created a lot of beliefs. Beliefs in spirits, good,
>> evil, magic, science, and een God. 4000 years ago there was nothing
>> special about God, he was just one of many in the Semetic pantheon.
>
>"after the fact" arguments.
>
>why would a human being invent any
>sort of god to explain anything?
Why would someone shoot themsleves or OD on crack? Humans are dumb
fucks.
>would you invent a god to explain where you came from?
Probably not. But I might. Hard to tell since quite a few have already
been invented for me.
>well, believe it or not *you* ain't any
>more advanced than so-called "primitive man."
That's the core of Anthropology. We're not advanced one bit. That's
why we still need God in this form. God should be a friend, a peer,
not someone to rule over us and fear.
>having electric appliances does not make you
>any more advanced than people were 3000 years ago.
It makes me less smelly and healthier though. And I like that.
>would you have invented a god for any reason.
>
>you'll never know. but generally
>people believe that children are not born believing in gods.
We'll have to do an experiment one day. I think that belief in God is
an emmergant property of the universe though. It's inevitable.
>> Well of course, not. I got the idea from others, just like you got the
>> idea that he did exist from others. THe cycle's been going on for
>> longer than H.sapiens has existed.
>
>human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
Lust, Fear, Hatred. The three driving forces of human behavior.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:37:06 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
>> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
>Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
Because it's contra-survivalist. Any energy a society devotes to
worship is lost energy, thus it should evolve out of a society over
time or that society faces extinction in time when it needs that
energy for survival.
Madog Velkor
Smith) jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:46:33 GMT, Ja...@nospam.ufl.edu (Jaden) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:37:06 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
>>> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>>
>>Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
>
>Just like there's no innate reason why man shouldn't drive an
>automobile or make a substantial monetary income, just because they
>didn't pop out of the womb with a driver's license or a
>screw-your-neighbor work ethic.
>
Sure there is. If everybody helps eachother, then everyone will have a
social saftey net to aid them during rough times.
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>Jaden wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > human beings are NOT born believing in God.
>> > there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
>> Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
>
>yes, there is nothing in nature which resembles god.
>
>there is no empirical evidence for god.
>
>....plain and simple....
Parents resemble God, in that they're more powerful than the child had
demand respect and obiedience. In addition they have strict rules of
right and wrong that must be obeyed, and offer no justification for
thier authority, other than the fact that they are parents.
>man is in nature.
>
>man should be able to understand the concepts
>of power and control from among himself.
>
>man doesn't need to invent a god to explain power and control.
But he does to justify that power and control.
>when a wild animal devours a man,
>he doesn't invent a god
>or call the wild animal, god.
>
>he doesn't even imbue the animal with human traits.
Ever heard of the cult of the Werejaguar? That's been the cheif
religion of Mesoamericans for over 5000 years.
>
>and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
>
>inventing abstract concepts
>stems from leisure activity.
>
>you may consider that "primitive man"
>never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
Most definitely. Primitive man had about 12 hrs per day of leisure
time. Only 4 hours was devoted to work. Look at teh Kung! or San
people today, and you'll see. Without a way to store food and no
technology to make large items worth storing, all you have to do is go
pick some berries or wander out to the water hole and kill a deer.
Now, *that* has TONS of evidence.
>huh?
>
>
>
>--
Jaden
> Because it's contra-survivalist. Any energy a society devotes to
> worship is lost energy, thus it should evolve out of a society over
> time or that society faces extinction in time when it needs that
> energy for survival.
Evolutionary pressures don't apply to societies in such a simplistic way, and
you know it. Stop being difficult.
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>ginohn wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
>
>> > inventing abstract concepts
>> > stems from leisure activity.
>
>> > you may consider that "primitive man"
>> > never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
>
>> > huh?
>
>> Some anthropologists have stated that the
>> !Kung Bushmen work approximately 3 hours a day.
>> They appear to have more leisure time than us.
>
>I'm not interested in your welfare mother.
>
>so, these bushmen are "primitive" unevolved humans?
>
>it's so nice to know that.
>
>let's drop you in the bush and see
>just how evolved *you* are.
No, but they have the same technology, and live in a *MUCH* harsher
and less fertile area than primitive man did. Man has been it its
present form for 200,000 years. Technology only began to change about
15,000 years ago.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>> when a wild animal devours a man,
>> he doesn't invent a god
>> or call the wild animal, god.
>>
>> he doesn't even imbue the animal with human traits.
>
>Well, some cultures do... Like African hunters who thank the animals they
>kill...
Not to mention that Siberian nomads who kill a bear offer the bear's
head a [place at the feast and feed it its own flesh, they then sing
to it, and dance with it. Then they take it to a holy area and
enshrine it.
>> and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
>>
>> inventing abstract concepts
>> stems from leisure activity.
>>
>> you may consider that "primitive man"
>> never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
>>
>> huh?
>
>I'll bet they had lots of time to think while they were out hunting and
>gathering. They did those cave paintings, too.
There used to be this elephant that painted. But it died. Animals have
art too. Maybe they have religion.
Timothy Sutter
> (Jaden):
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> >> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
> >Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
> Because it's contra-survivalist. Any energy a society devotes to
> worship is lost energy, thus it should evolve out of a society over
> time or that society faces extinction in time when it needs that
> energy for survival.
i see you're hung up on this worship thing.
do you consider thanking a friend for being there "worship?"
--
ginohn
>
> ginohn wrote:
> >
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > >
> > > ginohn wrote:
> > >
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > ginohn wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > isolate a group of people from birth
> > > > > > > and let them go their merry way,
> > >
> > > > > > They won't invent a "car" either,
> > > > > > but generations later, one of them
> > > > > > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
> > > > > > The meme of "god" may have evolved
> > > > > > from other memes. It had thousands
> > > > > > of generations to work through.
> > >
> > > > > well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
> > >
> > > > > they don't get the idea of god from nature.
> > >
> > > > But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
> > >
> > > > Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
> > >
> > > a car is not a large step from a chariot.
> > >
> > > combustion is derived from nature.
>
> > > steam engines are derived from nature.
>
> > > electric motors are derived from nature.
>
> > > put all these together and you get a car.
>
> > > "god" is not derived from nature.
>
> > a god is not a large step from a ghost.
>
> > swamp gas is derived from nature.
>
> > steam vents are derived from nature.
>
> > electric storms are derived from nature.
>
> > put all these together and you get a god.
>
> then I don't blame you for not believing in god.
>
believe in.
> but then you'd be simply not believing
> in a thing that wasn't God anyway.
Like Santa Claus?
>
> and your moving from particular to general back to particular
> would be rattled with holes anywho.
Would you say it might be... Holy?
> "my simplistic idea of god does not exist, therefore
> no God exists therefore your God does not exist."
The "simplistic idea" was not mine, it belonged
in a general way to many prehistoric and historic
cultures. Whereas the "simplistic" one is a sort
of Model T god, yours might be a Millenium Falcon
type. In a particularly metaphorical sense, of course.
> illogical illogical illogical, error error error...
Again, I did not say that your god does not exist.
I was only pointing out how the beginnings of a
concept of gods could develop over time, by plain
old humans doing plain old things. and so on.
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>ginohn wrote:
>
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> > Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> > > Timothy Sutter:
>
>> > > >Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> > > >> Timothy Sutter:
>
>> > > >> Some people beieve they will win the lottery. Maybe they will. But
>> > > >> they probably won't. Did God create that too? I think Man created
>> > > >> Man's belief.
>
>> > > >you can't show me how or why man
>> > > >would create man's belief in God.
>
>> > > Why not? Man's created a lot of beliefs. Beliefs in spirits, good,
>> > > evil, magic, science, and een God. 4000 years ago there was nothing
>> > > special about God, he was just one of many in the Semetic pantheon.
>
>> > "after the fact" arguments.
>
>> > why would a human being invent any
>> > sort of god to explain anything?
>
>> > would you invent a god to explain where you came from?
>
>> > well, believe it or not *you* ain't any
>> > more advanced than so-called "primitive man."
>
>> > having electric appliances does not make you
>> > any more advanced than people were 3000 years ago.
>
>> > would you have invented a god for any reason.
>
>> > you'll never know. but generally
>> > people believe that children are not born believing in gods.
>
>> > > Well of course, not. I got the idea from others, just like you got the
>> > > idea that he did exist from others. THe cycle's been going on for
>> > > longer than H.sapiens has existed.
>
>> > human beings are NOT born believing in God.
>> > there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
>> They're not born believing in Santa either,
>> and there's no reason to invent Santa,
>> yet someone did. Does Santa exist?
>> And no, I'm not an athesist, but I play
>> one on TV. I'm just providing an example
>> of a created belief. It doesn't seem too
>> difficult to create beliefs in gods out
>> of campfire stories and bad meat.
>
>after the fact.
>
>there was a St. Nicholas.
Didn't he go around giving goodies to the Ho's in Damascus? So they'd
become pure and chaste? I bet that's why he was always saying "Ho, ho,
ho."
>and there was already "god"
>before someone "invented" santa claus.
>
>this is called a "derivative" belief.
>
>not a new invention.
>
So God was the origional Santa? But then he started giving coal to the
good kids as well as the bad, so they traded him in for a new model?
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 20:19:22 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> and there was already "god"
>> before someone "invented" santa claus.
>>
>> this is called a "derivative" belief.
>>
>> not a new invention.
>
>If god's control over nature is an extrapolation of man's lesser control over
>nature, then the concept of god would be derivative also.
But what if Man was modeled after God? Wouldn't his lesser control of
nature be derivative of God's greater control then?
ginohn
>
> well, *you* don't really know whether some
> lizard did those cave paintings or not.
I know a goddess.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>Madog Velkor wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:11:05 -0500, ginohn <ma...@wunderland.com>
>> jibbered semi-coherently:
>>
>> >Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ginohn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > I put it to you that should you ever
>> >> > > isolate a group of people from birth
>> >> > > and let them go their merry way,
>> >> > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
>> >>
>> >> > They won't invent a "car" either,
>> >> > but generations later, one of them
>> >> > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
>> >> > The meme of "god" may have evolved
>> >> > from other memes. It had thousands
>> >> > of generations to work through.
>> >>
>> >> well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
>> >>
>> >> they don't get the idea of god from nature.
>> >>
>> >But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
>> >
>> >Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
>>
>> Sure they do. See, they could pull things. They saw that animals could
>> pull things. they hooked some things up to an animal and it was
>> pulled. This lead to chariots, which lead to wagons, which lead to
>> coaches, which lead to trains, which lead to cars.
>>
>Well, what I meant was that they don't get the idea of a car
>*directly* from nature (at least the nature that Tim was talking
>about). Just like the idea of a god might not come *directly*
>from nature (although it's a much simpler idea than a car,
>otherwise we'd have cars before gods), rather it would evolve
>from other concepts and observations, and in the gods' special
>case, hallucinations from bad meat and multiple orgasms.
>There is naturally, so to speak, a chain from every meme
>to something in nature. I am getting sleepy.
Ok, now you make sense.
Jaden
> There used to be this elephant that painted. But it died. Animals have
> art too. Maybe they have religion.
Do androids dream of electric sheep?
Jaden
> But what if Man was modeled after God? Wouldn't his lesser control of
> nature be derivative of God's greater control then?
Yes, it works both ways.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > "god" is not derived from nature.
> > > a god is not a large step from a ghost.
> > > swamp gas is derived from nature.
> > > steam vents are derived from nature.
> > > electric storms are derived from nature.
> > > put all these together and you get a god.
> > but then you'd be simply not believing
> > in a thing that wasn't God anyway.
> Like Santa Claus?
leave santa claus out of this.
santa claus is 400 or 500 years old tops.
and derived from a real person and given
certain ethereal qualities in a song.
santy was not invented independant from a pre-existant idea of god.
> > and your moving from particular to general back to particular
> > would be rattled with holes anywho.
> Would you say it might be... Holy?
probably not.
> > "my simplistic idea of god does not exist, therefore
> > no God exists therefore your God does not exist."
> The "simplistic idea" was not mine, it belonged
> in a general way to many prehistoric and historic
> cultures. Whereas the "simplistic" one is a sort
> of Model T god, yours might be a Millenium Falcon
> type. In a particularly metaphorical sense, of course.
buullshit. one, you don't know what some prehistoric culture believed
cuz there ain't no written rekerd telling you what they believed.
see....i'm way too fast for that.
and two, nobody turned swamp gas into God.
> > illogical illogical illogical, error error error...
> Again, I did not say that your god does not exist.
> I was only pointing out how the beginnings of a
> concept of gods could develop over time, by plain
> old humans doing plain old things. and so on.
you haven't shown that.
you haven't shown how God was derived, if at all.
you just said god was like swamp gas.
--
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:57:54 GMT, saint...@catholic.org (Madog Velkor) wrote:
>
>> Because it's contra-survivalist. Any energy a society devotes to
>> worship is lost energy, thus it should evolve out of a society over
>> time or that society faces extinction in time when it needs that
>> energy for survival.
>
>Evolutionary pressures don't apply to societies in such a simplistic way, and
>you know it. Stop being difficult.
>
Yes they do. Societies have gone extinct because of thier culture.
Relegion is either a method of preventing people from doing harmful
things (don't eat others, its evil --- this prevents diseases spread
by eating undercooked human flesh) or a method of control (Go to
church on Sunday ---- it doesn't really help, but it does serve as a
way for leaders to see how obeidient thier followers are). If the
envirometn changes, and what was formerly a survival trait, such as no
canibalsim, is no longer needed, then it becomes a drain on energy ---
that meant could be vauluable. And if thins go really bad, then a
society could die because they won't eat eachother.
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> (Jaden):
>
>> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> >> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
>> >> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
>> >Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
>
>> Because it's contra-survivalist. Any energy a society devotes to
>> worship is lost energy, thus it should evolve out of a society over
>> time or that society faces extinction in time when it needs that
>> energy for survival.
>
>i see you're hung up on this worship thing.
>
>do you consider thanking a friend for being there "worship?"
Depends on you're relationship with the friend and how much energy you
devote to the thanking.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>
>> well, *you* don't really know whether some
>> lizard did those cave paintings or not.
>
>I know a goddess.
In the biblical sense? Does she like whips and chains? Eris does ;)
ginohn
>
> Parents resemble God, in that they're more powerful than the child had
> demand respect and obiedience. In addition they have strict rules of
> right and wrong that must be obeyed, and offer no justification for
> thier authority, other than the fact that they are parents.
>
of concepts of "god": In prehistoric times, God was
right around the corner -- "God the Wind", or "God the
Fire", or "God the Quake". Then God gained authority,
became "God the Father", but at least he was still in
the family. Then it was "God the King", and his kingdom
was somewhere "up there". In stories and films lately,
we have "God the CEO", and "God the Alien". What's next?
Compared to all this, "God the Crazy Girl" doesn't
sound so bad. Not as authoritarian and certainly easier
to talk to.
Timothy Sutter
> So God was the origional Santa? But then he started giving coal to the
> good kids as well as the bad, so they traded him in for a new model?
no wonder yer so confused.
you think God is a dog trainer and you live in a kennel.
--
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> > > > there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
> > > They're not born believing in Santa either,
> > after the fact.
> > there was a St. Nicholas.
> > and there was already "god"
> > before someone "invented" santa claus.
> > this is called a "derivative" belief.
> > not a new invention.
> Your logic is beyond me.
> You win. God is Santa Claus.
God should have never created human beings.
--
ginohn
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:13:29 -0800, Timothy Sutter
> <tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>
> >
> >> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> > ginohn wrote:
> >
> >> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >
> >> > > > isolate a group of people from birth
> >> > > > and let them go their merry way,
> >> > > > that they will never invent a "god" to explain anything.
> >
> >> > > They won't invent a "car" either,
> >> > > but generations later, one of them
> >> > > might invent a "wheel", and so on.
> >> > > The meme of "god" may have evolved
> >> > > from other memes. It had thousands
> >> > > of generations to work through.
> >
> >> > well, you see, they get the idea of locomotion from nature.
> >
> >> > they don't get the idea of god from nature.
> >
> >> But they don't get the idea of car from nature either.
> >
> >> Locomotion, maybe, but not a car.
> >
> >
> >combustion is derived from nature.
> >
> >steam engines are derived from nature.
> >
> >electric motors are derived from nature.
> >
> >put all these together and you get a car.
>
> Oh, well I gues my last post was redundent then.
> >
> >"god" is not derived from nature.
>
> powerful than primative Man. Man wants protection from nature, but no
> one is strong enough. So they just imagine a realy strong man that is
> stronger than nature.
Hey, that sounds a lot like a Car.
Timothy Sutter
> >i see you're hung up on this worship thing.
> >do you consider thanking a friend for being there "worship?"
> Depends on you're relationship with the friend and how much energy you
> devote to the thanking.
I see you get silly when you get frustrated.
now i know why yer so silly.
--
ginohn
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:46:33 GMT, Ja...@nospam.ufl.edu (Jaden)
> jibbered semi-coherently:
>
> >
> >> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> >> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
> >
>
> Because it's contra-survivalist. Any energy a society devotes to
> worship is lost energy, thus it should evolve out of a society over
> time or that society faces extinction in time when it needs that
> energy for survival.
Besides witch, if you don't believe in God,
you can get burned at the stake, leaving
more of us believers around to procreate,
and spread the word.
Timothy Sutter
> Frank Baum knew this. Piaget knew
> this. Lichtenberg, too.
who gives a fuck what these people thought.
--
ginohn
>
> >On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 23:46:33 GMT, Ja...@nospam.ufl.edu (Jaden) wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 17:37:06 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> >>> there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
> >>
> >>Is there any innate reason that man -shouldn't- invent the concept of God?
> >
> >automobile or make a substantial monetary income, just because they
> >didn't pop out of the womb with a driver's license or a
> >screw-your-neighbor work ethic.
> >
>
> Sure there is. If everybody helps eachother, then everyone will have a
> social saftey net to aid them during rough times.
>
I'd definitely believe in Car.
ginohn
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 03:35:02 GMT, Ja...@nospam.ufl.edu (Jaden)
> jibbered semi-coherently:
>
> >> he doesn't invent a god
> >> or call the wild animal, god.
> >>
> >> he doesn't even imbue the animal with human traits.
> >
> >Well, some cultures do... Like African hunters who thank the animals they
> >kill...
>
> Not to mention that Siberian nomads who kill a bear offer the bear's
> head a [place at the feast and feed it its own flesh, they then sing
> to it, and dance with it. Then they take it to a holy area and
> enshrine it.
>
> >> and in reference to the "primitive man" bit,
> >>
> >> inventing abstract concepts
> >> stems from leisure activity.
> >>
> >> you may consider that "primitive man"
> >> never had enough leisure time to invent ANY abstract concepts.
> >>
> >> huh?
> >
> >I'll bet they had lots of time to think while they were out hunting and
> >gathering. They did those cave paintings, too.
>
> art too. Maybe they have religion.
>
ginohn
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:16:54 -0500, ginohn <ma...@wunderland.com>
> jibbered semi-coherently:
>
> >Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>
> >> well, *you* don't really know whether some
> >> lizard did those cave paintings or not.
> >
> >I know a goddess.
>
> In the biblical sense?
Yes! Lucky me...
And I pray to her and sometimes she listens.
> Does she like whips and chains? Eris does ;)
No, but she can change her mind any time she wants.
Afterall, she's a Goddess.
Timothy Sutter
> Besides witch, if you don't believe in God,
> you can get burned at the stake, leaving
> more of us believers around to procreate,
> and spread the word.
ya know, it's always possible that there'd
be a benefit to having God.
that it wasn't all a laying prostrate in the gutter type deal.
I mean, do you suppose that God
(if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
do you suppose that God needs anything from people?
maybe God
(if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
maybe God has lots of neat tricks
and stuff to give away for free.
--
ginohn
>
> ginohn wrote:
>
>
> > > > > human beings are NOT born believing in God.
> > > > > there is no innate reason why man should invent one.
>
>
> > > after the fact.
>
> > > there was a St. Nicholas.
>
> > > and there was already "god"
> > > before someone "invented" santa claus.
>
> > > this is called a "derivative" belief.
>
> > > not a new invention.
>
> > Your logic is beyond me.
> > You win. God is Santa Claus.
>
> God should have never created human beings.
>
Santa guy around. An anagram for Santa Claus
is "Satan Lucas".
ginohn
>
> So God was the origional Santa? But then he started giving coal to the
> good kids as well as the bad, so they traded him in for a new model?
>
so they upgraded to a Santly Steamer, which burned its
coal instead of giving it away.
ginohn
>
> ginohn wrote:
>
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>
if you had to put it into words.
ginohn
The thousands of people who buy their books?
ginohn
>
> ginohn wrote:
>
that God flicks away when they buzz around
his ears too much. beware of prayer.
zog...@home.com
> up with gods to explain the forces of nature. It's not a coincidence that most
> religions have very human-like gods. People like to think that Someone is in
Are you sure about this??? I see a number of large religions (Judaism,
Hinduism) that don't.
Zog the etc...
Accessibly Vague
Jaden wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 1999 22:25:19 -0500, Accessibly Vague <neth...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> > Yeah and you can't build a god because then it would be a car and there
> > are too many cars anyway.
>
> Packard came out with its "God" model in the early 50's, but even that couldn't
> keep the company from going under.
They just don't make Gods like they used to.
~Slag~
Accessibly Vague
Jaden wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 05:11:45 GMT, saint...@catholic.org (Madog Velkor) wrote:
>
> > There used to be this elephant that painted. But it died. Animals have
> > art too. Maybe they have religion.
>
> Do androids dream of electric sheep?
And do they short out if it's a wet dream?
~Slag~
Marc Lachance
Exactly. When was the last time you read "The Wizard of Oz"? Are you aware
that Jean Piaget revolutionised child psychology and learning theories? If
you had studied Piaget's theories, you wouldn't be asking so many stupid
questions.
Joseph Cambell is also a good source to read. Maybe then you'll understand why
I'm not getting all that involved in this thread.
/\ Marc Lachance -><-
/<>\ (K) 3165 or thereabouts. Possibly.
/____\ Don't forget to [FNORD] the [FNORD]!
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jaden
> Are you sure about this??? I see a number of large religions (Judaism,
> Hinduism) that don't.
I guess we have different definitions of human-like, because I was counting
Judaism as one of the religions which does have a human-like god. Not in
physical attributes, of course... just the modus operandi of the god.
Jaden
wrote:
> Joseph Cambell is also a good source to read. Maybe then you'll understand why
> I'm not getting all that involved in this thread.
I've read Jospeh Cambell, I just like to argue.
Jaden
wrote:
> ya know, it's always possible that there'd
> be a benefit to having God.
>
> that it wasn't all a laying prostrate in the gutter type deal.
>
> I mean, do you suppose that God
> (if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
> do you suppose that God needs anything from people?
>
> maybe God
> (if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
> maybe God has lots of neat tricks
> and stuff to give away for free.
In one of the big flame threads a while ago, I went over the societal benefits
of religion.... Religion has been a unifying force throughout history.
Jaden
> Yes they do. Societies have gone extinct because of thier culture.
> Relegion is either a method of preventing people from doing harmful
> things (don't eat others, its evil --- this prevents diseases spread
> by eating undercooked human flesh) or a method of control (Go to
> church on Sunday ---- it doesn't really help, but it does serve as a
> way for leaders to see how obeidient thier followers are). If the
> envirometn changes, and what was formerly a survival trait, such as no
> canibalsim, is no longer needed, then it becomes a drain on energy ---
> that meant could be vauluable. And if thins go really bad, then a
> society could die because they won't eat eachother.
I notice you didn't manage to point out exactly how religion is a waste of
energy...
zog...@home.com
> yes, there is nothing in nature which resembles god.
>
> there is no empirical evidence for god.
>
> ....plain and simple....
>
So the lack of empirical arguments is PROOF of God???
Zog the etc...
zog...@home.com
> a car is not a large step from a chariot.
>
A chariot is made from nature?
Zog the etc...
zog...@home.com
> I guess we have different definitions of human-like, because I was counting
> Judaism as one of the religions which does have a human-like god. Not in
> physical attributes, of course... just the modus operandi of the god.
>
What do you require for it to be human like??? I had assumed that you
meant physically (X-tians, Greeks) but even emotionally or mentally the
Jewish God is not humanlike. How do you define it?
Zog the etc...
Madog Velkor
<neth...@iglou.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
It's hard to keep them up to date with the demands of the consumer.
-><-
Madog, Keeper of Bobo the Chimp
Lord of Petty Annoyances
Ambrose Bierce Mexican Travel Agency Cabal
http://members.xoom.com/ABMTAC
-><-
"I am the way, prepare for salvation"
-Fear Factory, "Smasher/Devourer"
-><-
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
I was at a Marilyn Manson concert last night, and he saud that God was
like Mickey Mouse.
Madog Velkor
semi-coherently:
>Timothy Sutter wrote:
>
>> a car is not a large step from a chariot.
>>
>A chariot is made from nature?
>
Sure, didn't you see the Nation Geographic special on the wild Mexican
stareing chariots of southern Sri Lanka?
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>Marc Lachance wrote:
>
>> Frank Baum knew this. Piaget knew
>> this. Lichtenberg, too.
>
>who gives a fuck what these people thought.
I know some gurls who'd give a fuck for less than that.
Madog Velkor
>In article <37006A82...@wunderland.com>,
> ma...@wunderland.com wrote:
>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> >
>> > Marc Lachance wrote:
>> >
>> > > Frank Baum knew this. Piaget knew
>> > > this. Lichtenberg, too.
>> >
>> > who gives a fuck what these people thought.
>>
>> The thousands of people who buy their books?
>>
>
>Exactly. When was the last time you read "The Wizard of Oz"? Are you aware
>that Jean Piaget revolutionised child psychology and learning theories? If
>you had studied Piaget's theories, you wouldn't be asking so many stupid
>questions.
>
>Joseph Cambell is also a good source to read. Maybe then you'll understand why
>I'm not getting all that involved in this thread.
>
I thought about bring him up, but I want this thread to continue. Its
fun.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 05:26:41 GMT, saint...@catholic.org (Madog Velkor) wrote:
>
>> Yes they do. Societies have gone extinct because of thier culture.
>> Relegion is either a method of preventing people from doing harmful
>> things (don't eat others, its evil --- this prevents diseases spread
>> by eating undercooked human flesh) or a method of control (Go to
>> church on Sunday ---- it doesn't really help, but it does serve as a
>> way for leaders to see how obeidient thier followers are). If the
>> envirometn changes, and what was formerly a survival trait, such as no
>> canibalsim, is no longer needed, then it becomes a drain on energy ---
>> that meant could be vauluable. And if thins go really bad, then a
>> society could die because they won't eat eachother.
>
>I notice you didn't manage to point out exactly how religion is a waste of
>energy...
>
OK, fine, if you want it spelled out for you. Religion starts out
searving a purpose that's benificial. However, its practice uses up
energy. This isn't a problem at first, but over time more practices
are added to a religion, using more energy. The origional practices
lose thier benifits over time and simply become drains on a society's
energy. When they need that energy, they don't have it and they die.
Religion could easily be replaced by common sense.
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>ginohn wrote:
>
>> Besides witch, if you don't believe in God,
>> you can get burned at the stake, leaving
>> more of us believers around to procreate,
>> and spread the word.
>
>ya know, it's always possible that there'd
>be a benefit to having God.
>
>that it wasn't all a laying prostrate in the gutter type deal.
>
>I mean, do you suppose that God
>(if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
>do you suppose that God needs anything from people?
>
>maybe God
>(if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
>maybe God has lots of neat tricks
>and stuff to give away for free.
It's entirely possible, but the problem is that few people see God
that way. Thus, they waste a lot of energy over nothing. What if all
the Christians in the world spent an hour every sunday helping the
poor instead of worhiping God? Wouldn't God's works be better
accomplished that way?
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 00:41:27 -0800, Timothy Sutter <tsu...@geocities.com>
>wrote:
>
>> ya know, it's always possible that there'd
>> be a benefit to having God.
>>
>> that it wasn't all a laying prostrate in the gutter type deal.
>>
>> I mean, do you suppose that God
>> (if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
>> do you suppose that God needs anything from people?
>>
>> maybe God
>> (if there is such a thing, for those who need equivocation)
>> maybe God has lots of neat tricks
>> and stuff to give away for free.
>
>In one of the big flame threads a while ago, I went over the societal benefits
>of religion.... Religion has been a unifying force throughout history.
>
No it hasn't. It's destroyed more empires than it's created.
Madog Velkor
<tsu...@geocities.com> jibbered semi-coherently:
>Madog Velkor wrote:
>
>> >i see you're hung up on this worship thing.
>
>> >do you consider thanking a friend for being there "worship?"
>
>> Depends on you're relationship with the friend and how much energy you
>> devote to the thanking.
>
>I see you get silly when you get frustrated.
>
>now i know why yer so silly.
ditto.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 05:11:45 GMT, saint...@catholic.org (Madog Velkor) wrote:
>
>> There used to be this elephant that painted. But it died. Animals have
>> art too. Maybe they have religion.
>
>Do androids dream of electric sheep?
>
>
Probably not anymore than people do.
Madog Velkor
jibbered semi-coherently:
>Madog Velkor wrote:
>>
>> Parents resemble God, in that they're more powerful than the child had
>> demand respect and obiedience. In addition they have strict rules of
>> right and wrong that must be obeyed, and offer no justification for
>> thier authority, other than the fact that they are parents.
>>
>There's another interesting theory about the evolution
>of concepts of "god": In prehistoric times, God was
>right around the corner -- "God the Wind", or "God the
>Fire", or "God the Quake". Then God gained authority,
>became "God the Father", but at least he was still in
>the family. Then it was "God the King", and his kingdom
>was somewhere "up there". In stories and films lately,
>we have "God the CEO", and "God the Alien". What's next?
>Compared to all this, "God the Crazy Girl" doesn't
>sound so bad. Not as authoritarian and certainly easier
>to talk to.
Intersting, all the gods that spawned thier own monotheistic religions
were either Sun gods or sky gods. Just look at Ba'al, Yaweh, Aten,
etc.